United Airlines, Inc. has agreed to pay $321,000, plus attorney's fees, to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency announced today.
Read MoreCalifornia employment lawyers are closely following what one commentator calls the new “Request Arbitration, Go to Jail” law.
Read MoreThe country's two million government employees will gain 12 weeks of paid parental leave as part of a defense bill that President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday. But it still leaves about 80% of U.S. workers in the private sector with no access to paid family leave.
Read MoreTexas Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court declining to compel arbitration of class claims under the parties' arbitration agreement. This dispute was not an employment case but the same reasoning should apply to attempts by employers to force employment-related class claims into arbitration.
Read More
San Antonio Express News has an investigative report out today covering the rampant wage theft that still takes place against produce workers in the Rio Grand Valley: Fair pay a distant dream for produce packers in Rio Grande Valley
For two years, Jorge Perez Hernandez worked 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, in a small refrigerated warehouse here. He sorted fruit and vegetables from Mexico and repackaged them for distribution in the U.S.
***
“I came in at 8 a.m. and I left at 11 p.m. or 12 at night, with an (unpaid) hour for lunch and dinner,” he said. “Six days a week.”
And when they complain or report being underpaid…
“Sometimes he’d carry the gun, put it on the table so we could see it there, to intimidate us,” Perez Hernandez recalled.
De La Fuente heard about their complaint and fired all six workers, Galvan said.
***
Employers have coached workers to lie to investigators about their pay and working conditions, and in some cases have fired them for cooperating, court records show. In one case, a packing company reported an undocumented worker to U.S. immigration authorities to retaliate against the man for talking to investigators, according to court records.
And, the workers get the message…
After Fuentes Farms fired them, five of the six workers who had complained to the commission dropped their cases. They feared being blacklisted in the industry — or worse, deported.
The government can’t keep up, even with help from excellent public interest firms like Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.
Experts largely agree that the Department of Labor doesn’t have the resources to stay on top of the situation. Many workers say speaking up often means becoming unemployable.
In this border region of Texas, many undocumented workers struggle to feed their families, being abused by American companies while staying under the radar to avoid deportation. What keeps them going is their dream for future generations.
“They want their children to be educated,” he said.
His oldest child is 15, a sophomore in high school. Like his parents, he is undocumented. Unlike them, he speaks both English and Spanish. When he grows up, he wants to be a lawyer.
A recent study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute found that between 28% to 46% of the private-sector workforce are required to sign noncompete agreements in order to keep their jobs. The study found that 49% of employers said they require at least some of their employees to sign noncompetes, while 31% reported that all of their employees were required to sign noncompetes…..
Read MoreSenator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a bill that would expand the protections provided by the FMLA to certain part-time employees of large companies. According to a summary of the proposal, the law would require employers with more than 500 employees to offer available hours to current, available, qualified part-time employees before hiring new workers…..
Read MoreThroughout the American workplace, pregnancy discrimination remains widespread. It can start as soon as a woman is showing, and it often lasts through her early years as a mother….
Read MoreA new report from LeanIn.org and McKinsey indicates that it’s not the “glass ceiling” that is the primary block to women’s progress in the workplace….
Read More
A federal jury in Wisconsin awarded a disabled Walmart Inc. employee $5.2 million in damages, finding that the retail chain had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to accommodate the long-time worker.
The employee, who has a developmental disability and is deaf and visually impaired had worked as a cart pusher at the store for 16 years before a new manager started at the store. The new store manager suspended the employee in his first month and forced him to resubmit medical paperwork to keep his reasonable accommodations, according to the lawsuit. The store then fired the employee.
Last week a Wisconsin jury found in the employee’s favor after a 3½-day trial and awarded him $200,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. Sadly, this amount will likely be reduced by operation of the statutory damages caps found in the ADA. These caps have not been adjusted for inflation in almost 30 years.
In January the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision allowing a blind plaintiff to proceed with his ADA Title III lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza for having an allegedly inaccessible website and mobile app. The court determined that allowing the claim to move forward was not a violation of Domino’s due process rights, even though the ADA and its regulations contain no definition of, or technical specifications for, “accessible” public accommodations websites. It now appears that Domino’s is planning to try to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court….
Read More
Genesee County Courthouse
A Michigan jury awarded more than $11 million this month to a husband-and-wife pair who sued the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.
A six-member all-white jury delivered its unanimous verdict after a six-week trial that included 41 witnesses and hinged on allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff alleged that she was racially harassed on a daily basis including being called 'Mammy', (being) asked if she wanted chitlins on her pizza, called the "black one" in her all-white office, and told she was not wanted in the all-white office. She also claimed she was put into life-threatening situations after complaining about racism.
The plaintiff had worked for the state for 19 years. Because of the work environment, the plaintiff transferred to another office, but she said the race discrimination and retaliation continued. Her husband also was allegedly forced to retire from his job as a deputy warden when phony disciplinary charges were brought against him. The jury awarded the plaintiff $5.1 million and her husband $6.25 million.
Read More: Detroit News
Learn More About Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), the world's largest package delivery company, will pay $2.25 million and clarify its pregnancy accommodation policies to resolve a pregnancy discrimination charge that was investigated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced last week. The settlement stems from a claim brought by a UPS driver who alleged that the company's refusal to provide light duty as an accommodation to pregnant workers violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The EEOC's investigation uncovered other incidents beyond the initial Charging Party where pregnant women were not given light duty or provided other accommodations, according to a statement from the EEOC.
The Commission said that, until 2015, UPS provided accommodations to workers injured on the job, those with driving restrictions and those with disabilities. However, the package delivery service did not provide accommodations to pregnant women.
Discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, is a prohibited form of sex discrimination. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act doesn't require accommodations per se, it does require that employers treat women affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions the same as non-pregnant applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Thus, if a company provides accommodations for health conditions other than pregnancy, it must provide equal treatment of pregnancy and health conditions related to pregnancy.
This means that pregnant workers must be provided with the same access to light duty that other employees receive. It also means that pregnant women cannot be excluded from light duty or denied it at a higher rate than other employees.
Read the EEOC’s Press Release Here.
Learn More: Pregnancy Discrimination Info
A 72-year-old former Google employee has sued the company, claiming he experienced numerous instances of age-based harassment, discrimination and intimidation according to filed court documents.
Read More
Taking a monumental step forward for workers, on Tuesday, September 10, the House Judiciary Committee marked up and approved (22-14) the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (FAIR Act) (H.R. 1423). The House is expected to vote on the bill as soon as this week. Congress has never before voted on a comprehensive bill to end forced arbitration.
The FAIR Act would open the courthouse doors and restore workers' access to America's civil justice system. Among other things, the FAIR Act would make it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration on workers, unless the worker knowingly and voluntarily agrees to arbitration after a dispute arises or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The FAIR Act bans arbitration in consumer, civil rights, employment, and antitrust disputes. The bill addresses many issues that are important in ensuring that workers are not bound by forced arbitration clauses.
A Tennessee caregiving company has agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a pregnancy bias lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, since at least 2010, the employer had required its female employees to sign a pregnancy policy during orientation. The policy provided that their employment terminated at the fifth month of pregnancy. The EEOC further alleged that the employer enforced its policy against multiple women by terminating them due to their pregnancy, despite their ability to effectively perform their job duties.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes clear that bias against applicants or employees on the basis of childbirth, pregnancy, or related medical conditions constitutes illegal sex discrimination. Additionally, while pregnancy itself is not considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), conditions associated with pregnancy — including back pain, gestational diabetes, and pregnancy-induced high blood pressure — may be.
Pregnant employees who are able to continue performing their jobs must be permitted to do so. If a pregnant employee is temporarily unable to perform her job, she must be treated the same as any other temporarily disabled employee in terms of opportunities for modified work tasks, light duty, alternative assignments, disability leave or unpaid leave.
Learn more about pregnancy bias and pregnancy discrimination laws.
As we enjoy another Labor Day weekend, here are some quick facts about the holiday designed to celebrate workers.
"Labor Day differs in every essential from the other holidays of the year in any country," said Samuel Gompers, founder and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor. "All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man's prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day...is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation."
Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity and well-being of our country.
More than 100 years after the first Labor Day observance, there is still some doubt as to who first proposed the holiday for workers.
Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold."
But Peter McGuire's place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many believe that Matthew Maguire, a machinist, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday. Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J., proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. What is clear is that the Central Labor Union adopted a Labor Day proposal and appointed a committee to plan a demonstration and picnic.
The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, l883.
In l884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a "workingmen's holiday" on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in l885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.
Through the years the nation gave increasing emphasis to Labor Day. The first governmental recognition came through municipal ordinances passed during 1885 and 1886. From them developed the movement to secure state legislation. The first state bill was introduced into the New York legislature, but the first to become law was passed by Oregon on February 2l, l887. During the year four more states -- Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York -- created the Labor Day holiday by legislative enactment. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.
Have a great Labor Day weekend everybody!
The Washington State Supreme Court Says It Is
Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal under state law to refuse to hire an obese individual if they are otherwise qualified for a job when it defined obesity as a disability under state law.
The court ruled that the state's definition of disability in the Washington State Law Against Discrimination included individuals with obesity, offering a significantly broader scope than federal disability law. Weight is not listed as a protected category under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act and federal courts have not considered obesity a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless it is the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition.
U.S. federal appeals courts have ruled that obesity in itself is not an impairment under the ADA. Four federal appeals courts, including most recently the 7th Circuit in June, have said that under the Act, there must be an underlying or perceived impairment — a "physiological disorder or condition" — causing a person's obesity for the individual to be considered disabled.
The Washington State Court decision confronted the established classification of obesity, instead preferencing the state's broader disability law. It ruled that under the state law, "the medical evidence [for obesity] shows that it is a 'physiological disorder, or condition' that affects many of the listed body systems" and that "obesity is not merely the status of being overweight, but instead is recognized by the medical community as a 'primary disease.'"
Greyhound Lines Inc.
According to a lawsuit filed earlier this month by the EEOC against Dallas-based Greyhound Lines, the company violated federal law when it refused to accommodate the religious beliefs of a bus driver.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, a driver who is a practicing Muslim applied for a driver position at Greyhound's Baltimore facility. During the interview the driver told the supervisor for driver operations and safety that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly by wearing a headscarf and an abaya, a loose-fitting ankle-length overgarment that conceals the outline of the wearer's body. The supervisor told her during the interview, and later during her training after she was hired, that Greyhound would accommodate her religious beliefs.
However, Greyhound later refused to allow her to wear the abaya, claiming it would be a safety hazard, and proposed she wear a knee-length skirt over pants. The EEOC said that the driver was compelled to quit because the skirt-and-pants uniform proposal conflicted with her religious practice of modest dress by revealing the outline of her body.
According to the suit, prior to applying at Greyhound, the driver had successfully completed her commercial driving license training and had satisfactorily completed all Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration examinations while wearing the abaya. She also was employed for one year as a tractor-trailer driver while wearing the abaya.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an applicant's or employee's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would pose an undue hardship. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01651). The lawsuit seeks back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
"The driver was able to perform her duties safely while wearing her religious garb, but Greyhound unjustly refused to accommodate her religious beliefs," said EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. "No employee should be forced to choose between practicing her sincerely held religious beliefs and earning a living."
Read more articles about discrimination here.
ADEA - Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has let stand a $334,500 jury verdict for a 61-year-old employee who the company fired over a single incident of backdating a form.
The Plaintiff, Glenda Westmoreland, had worked for a Time Warner Cable subsidiary for more than 30 years, was fired after instructing a subordinate to backdate a form to reflect the date of a related meeting, rather than the date the form was actually completed. TWC initially told her the infraction wasn't serious but later concluded that she had violated company policy prohibiting false statements and created "trust and integrity" issues. While walking her to her car, a supervisor told the Plaintiff, "You’ll get another job. Just go home and take care of those grandbabies.” Westmoreland sued, alleging age discrimination.
A jury found for Westmoreland and, on appeal, the 4th Circuit upheld the verdict. TWC’s "about face" on the disciplinary matter could give rise to a "suspicion of mendacity" about the company’s rationale for firing her, the court said. It also noted that company representatives had testified that there were lesser forms of discipline available. As a result, the court said, the jury could reasonably find that Westmoreland’s firing for one infraction that did not require termination was "such an extreme overreaction as to be pretextual." In addition, the jury could have found that the "grandbabies" comment was made by a supervisor who harbored age bias, the court said.
Age discrimination in employment is illegal, but two-thirds of older job seekers report encountering it. Employees between the ages of 46 and 65 (especially those nearing retirement age) are the most likely to be targeted. Those employees are often let go by employers who perceive them to be more expensive and less valuable than younger replacements.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exists to protect individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA's protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment -- including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.
You can read the full 4th Circuit opinion here.
Copyright 2024 - The McKinney Law Firm, P.C. All rights reserved.
The responsible lawyer for this website is Christopher McKinney. For questions about this website, contact Christopher McKinney. The McKinney Law Firm serves clients throughout the State of Texas. The firm's main office is in San Antonio, Texas. Christopher McKinney is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Unless otherwise indicated, other attorneys with the firm are not board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
Material presented on this website is intended for information purposes only. It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such. Some links within this website may lead to other sites. The McKinney Law Firm, P.C. does not necessarily sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of the materials appearing in such sites.
